Thread: Constitutional Law Conversation .... Alberto Gonzales ;)

Originally Posted by Bamajdphd

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

Originally Posted by Bamajdphd

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

As I explained to aother poster via PM, the problem with calling Habeas Corpus a right is that it is not a power that is commonly held.

As discussed in Dean's article, the United States Supreme Court disagrees:

In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Court's opinion, written by Justice O'Connor, stated - citing the Constitution itself - that "[a]ll agree that absent suspension, the writ of habeas corpus remains available to every individual detained within the United States[.]''

[1] While you're quoting part of the Supreme's ruling, why not include it in entirety?

[2] Also, it would be beneficial to your argument to include the desenting opinions.

[3] After all, we ALL have come to realize that there are several Supremes that have bowed at the alter of INTERNATIONAL LAW and NOT the US Constitution.

.

[1] Because the excerpt provided succinctly and accurately made the point I wanted made. If you want more, if you have a further point you want to make, why not include it in a post of your own?

[2] The "desenting" (sic) opinions were not included because dissenting opinions are not the law of the land. I'm not today interested in losing visions of what the law says, but in this limited point I'd made above.

[3] "Bow at the alter"? That's a little shrill, but my question is: do you think some of the justices' opinions are invalid, "don't really count," somehow?

At that rate, B.......your post is useless to the discussion.
A Supreme decision also includes the disent and must be taken in it's entirety for full understanding.........NOT only YOUR particular point. It must be taken in full context.

Don't give me your BS, lol.

As far as the Justices' 'opinions' being valid or invalid {seeing the decision in it's entirety is the only way that can be discussed with validity} would certainly be determined by whether or not they have based some or all on INTERNATIONAL LAW in conjunction with our Constitution.

Hmmmm, now you're beginning to sound like an internationalist rather than an American. Which is it?

Constitution or International law?

Oh, yes...........'bow at the alter' would be correct.
You would be able to find that info directly out of lectures given by several of the Justices over the past 10+ years. I believe, if memory serves, that S. O'Connor was the first to expose herself as an Internationalist and that many of her decisions were based on said Law.
I happen to personally witness that particular lecture. Eye opening, to say the least. Although, Ginsberg might have been the first. ACLU and all that, ya know.

.

Originally Posted by Bamajdphd

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

As I explained to aother poster via PM, the problem with calling Habeas Corpus a right is that it is not a power that is commonly held.

As discussed in Dean's article, the United States Supreme Court disagrees:

In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Court's opinion, written by Justice O'Connor, stated - citing the Constitution itself - that "[a]ll agree that absent suspension, the writ of habeas corpus remains available to every individual detained within the United States[.]''

But at issue is what being "within the United States" is or is not limited to. Is a prisoner of war camp that is not located within the geographical United States actually "within the United States." Does the Writ apply to prisoners of war or military detainees? Are these men in fact POWs or military detainees, or so they hold the same status as domestic criminal detainees?

That, 2ndamendsis, is why he does not wish to elaborate on the decision but instead provides a tiny snippet out of its original context.